Review published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 20:2 (2022) ► pp.558566
Barth, D. & Kapatsinski, V.
(2017) A multimodel inference approach to categorical variant choice: Construction, priming and frequency effects on the choice between full and contracted forms of am, are and is. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 13 (1), 1–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B.
(1989) Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R. A., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., & Ellis, N. C.
(2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59 (S1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(1985) Morphology: A study on the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givón & B. F. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp. 109–132). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
(2016) Cognitive linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27 (4), 479–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M.
(2005) A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81 (4), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D., Levshina, N., & Klavan, J.
(2016) Cognitive linguistics: Looking back, looking forward. Cognitive Linguistics, 27 (4), 447–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2014) Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.
(1987) Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13 1, 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, M.
(1998) String frequency. A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing, and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics, 26 (4), 286–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Frequency as a determinant of grammatical variation and change. In G. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp.7–67). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1988) A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 127–161). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smirnova, E., & Sommerer, L.
(2020) Introduction: The nature of the node and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C.
(2009) Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58 (2), 250–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar